public-tt@w3.org from May 2014 by author

Andreas Tai

• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Thursday, 15 May)

Cyril Concolato

• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Tuesday, 20 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry (Thursday, 15 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Wednesday, 7 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Wednesday, 7 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Monday, 5 May)

David Singer

• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry (Thursday, 15 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry (Thursday, 15 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry (Thursday, 15 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Thursday, 15 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Wednesday, 14 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Wednesday, 14 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Wednesday, 14 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Wednesday, 14 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Tuesday, 13 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Tuesday, 13 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Tuesday, 13 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Monday, 12 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Monday, 12 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Sunday, 11 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Thursday, 8 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Tuesday, 6 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Tuesday, 6 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Tuesday, 6 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Saturday, 3 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Friday, 2 May)

Glenn Adams

• Re: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 29/5/2014 (Friday, 30 May)
• Re: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Thursday, 29 May)
• [ttml2] expressing feature/extension restriction/extension (Saturday, 24 May)
• Re: ISSUE-320 (Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay?): Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay? [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Saturday, 24 May)
• Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Saturday, 24 May)
• Re: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Saturday, 24 May)
• Re: ISSUE-312 (forcedDisplay should be in ttm): forcedDisplay attribute is metadata so should be in ttm not tts namespace [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: [ttml2] major update to profile related material (Wednesday, 21 May)
• Re: ISSUE-309 (Image profile fails WCAG 1.2): Image profile needs to permit text equivalent [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Wednesday, 21 May)
• [ttml2] major update to profile related material (Wednesday, 21 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Tuesday, 20 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Tuesday, 20 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Tuesday, 20 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Tuesday, 20 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Sunday, 18 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Sunday, 18 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Thursday, 15 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry (Thursday, 15 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry (Thursday, 15 May)
• Draft TTML Codecs Registry (Thursday, 15 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Wednesday, 14 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Wednesday, 14 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Wednesday, 14 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Tuesday, 13 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Tuesday, 13 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Tuesday, 13 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Monday, 12 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Monday, 12 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Sunday, 11 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Sunday, 11 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Sunday, 11 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Sunday, 11 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Saturday, 3 May)

Ian Jacobs

• Call for Exclusions: TTML Text and Image Profiles for Internet Media Subtitles and Captions 1.0 (Thursday, 1 May)

John Birch

• RE: ISSUE-309 (Image profile fails WCAG 1.2): Image profile needs to permit text equivalent [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Thursday, 22 May)
• RE: ISSUE-309 (Image profile fails WCAG 1.2): Image profile needs to permit text equivalent [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Thursday, 22 May)
• RE: ISSUE-309 (Image profile fails WCAG 1.2): Image profile needs to permit text equivalent [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Wednesday, 21 May)
• RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Tuesday, 20 May)
• RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Tuesday, 20 May)
• RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Tuesday, 20 May)
• RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Sunday, 18 May)
• RE: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 8/5/2014 - ISSUE-308 (Thursday, 8 May)
• RE: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 8/5/2014 (Thursday, 8 May)

Michael Dolan

• RE: ISSUE-320 (Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay?): Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay? [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• RE: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• RE: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• RE: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• RE: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Thursday, 22 May)
• RE: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Thursday, 22 May)
• RE: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Thursday, 22 May)
• RE: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Thursday, 22 May)
• RE: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Thursday, 22 May)
• RE: ISSUE-309 (Image profile fails WCAG 1.2): Image profile needs to permit text equivalent [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Wednesday, 21 May)
• RE: ISSUE-312 (forcedDisplay should be in ttm): forcedDisplay attribute is metadata so should be in ttm not tts namespace [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Wednesday, 21 May)
• RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry (Thursday, 15 May)
• RE: Draft TTML Codecs Registry (Thursday, 15 May)
• RE: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText - ISSUE-305 (Wednesday, 7 May)
• RE: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Wednesday, 7 May)
• RE: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Tuesday, 6 May)
• RE: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Tuesday, 6 May)
• RE: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Monday, 5 May)

Nigel Megitt

• {minutes} TTWG Meeting 29/5/2014 (Thursday, 29 May)
• {agenda} TTWG Meeting 29/5/2014 (Wednesday, 28 May)
• Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Tuesday, 27 May)
• Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Tuesday, 27 May)
• Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Tuesday, 27 May)
• Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Tuesday, 27 May)
• Re: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Tuesday, 27 May)
• Re: ISSUE-312 (forcedDisplay should be in ttm): forcedDisplay attribute is metadata so should be in ttm not tts namespace [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Tuesday, 27 May)
• Re: ISSUE-320 (Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay?): Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay? [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-320 (Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay?): Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay? [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Update to ISSUE-305 (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Thursday, 22 May)
• Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Thursday, 22 May)
• Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Thursday, 22 May)
• {minutes} TTWG Meeting 22/5/2014 (Thursday, 22 May)
• Re: ISSUE-309 (Image profile fails WCAG 1.2): Image profile needs to permit text equivalent [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Thursday, 22 May)
• {agenda} TTWG Meeting 22/5/2014 (Wednesday, 21 May)
• Re: [ttml2] major update to profile related material (Wednesday, 21 May)
• Re: ISSUE-316 (Wording if 5.2): (Wednesday, 21 May)
• Re: [ttml2] major update to profile related material (Wednesday, 21 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Tuesday, 20 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Tuesday, 20 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Monday, 19 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Friday, 16 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry - Issue-305 (Thursday, 15 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry (Thursday, 15 May)
• {minutes} TTWG Meeting 15/5/2014 (Thursday, 15 May)
• Re: Draft TTML Codecs Registry (Thursday, 15 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Wednesday, 14 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Wednesday, 14 May)
• {agenda} TTWG Meeting 15/5/2014 (Wednesday, 14 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText - ISSUE 305 (Tuesday, 13 May)
• Re: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 8/5/2014 - ISSUE-308 (Thursday, 8 May)
• {minutes} TTWG Meeting 8/5/2014 (Thursday, 8 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText - ISSUE-305 (Thursday, 8 May)
• {agenda} TTWG Meeting 8/5/2014 (Wednesday, 7 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText - ISSUE-305 (Wednesday, 7 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Wednesday, 7 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Tuesday, 6 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Tuesday, 6 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Tuesday, 6 May)
• {minutes} TTWG Meeting 1/5/2014 (Thursday, 1 May)
• Re: Liaison response - template on MIME type parameter for TimedText (Thursday, 1 May)
• [transition announcement] FPWD for "TTML Text and Image Profiles for Internet Media Subtitles and Captions 1.0" (Thursday, 1 May)

Pierre-Anthony Lemieux

• Re: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 29/5/2014 (Friday, 30 May)
• Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Thursday, 29 May)
• Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Tuesday, 27 May)
• Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Tuesday, 27 May)
• Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Tuesday, 27 May)
• Re: ISSUE-320 (Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay?): Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay? [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-320 (Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay?): Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay? [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-320 (Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay?): Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay? [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• Re: ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)

Silvia Pfeiffer

• Re: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 29/5/2014 (Thursday, 29 May)

Thierry MICHEL

• Re: {agenda} TTWG Meeting 8/5/2014 (Thursday, 8 May)

Timed Text Working Group Issue Tracker

• ISSUE-321: typo - s/ttp:feature/ttp:extension/ in 5th paragraph of 6.1.5 [TTML 1.0 (Editorial)] (Saturday, 24 May)
• ISSUE-320 (Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay?): Is normative SMPTE 2052 reference okay? [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• ISSUE-319 (HRM should be a processor compliance test): HRM should be a processor compliance test and allow different levels of complexity for different use cases [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 23 May)
• ISSUE-318 (HRM glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning): Hypothetical Render Model glyph copy assumes no sub-pixel positioning [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Thursday, 22 May)
• ISSUE-317 (IMSC should not require frame alignment): IMSC should not require frame alignment [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Thursday, 22 May)
• ISSUE-316 (Wording if 5.2): (Wednesday, 21 May)
• ISSUE-315 (Maximum number of regions should be a processor constraint): Maximum number of regions should be a processor constraint [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Wednesday, 21 May)
• ISSUE-314 (Temporally active is not defined for regions): Temporally active is not defined for regions [TTML 1.0] (Wednesday, 21 May)
• ISSUE-313 (Presented Region is informative only): Presented Region section is informative only [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Wednesday, 21 May)
• ISSUE-312 (forcedDisplay should be in ttm): forcedDisplay attribute is metadata so should be in ttm not tts namespace [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Wednesday, 21 May)
• ISSUE-311 (Note on progressivelyDecodable): Note on progressivelyDecodable is not a sentence [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Wednesday, 21 May)
• ISSUE-310 (progressivelyDecodable needs hierarchical definition): Forward reference rule doesn't take into account child elements [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Wednesday, 21 May)
• ISSUE-309 (Image profile fails WCAG 1.2): Image profile needs to permit text equivalent [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Wednesday, 21 May)
• ISSUE-308 (Related video object reference missing): It is unclear how a document is associated with a related video object [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 2 May)
• ISSUE-307 (Profile and conformance terminology): Conformance language and processor profile rather than content profile. [TTML IMSC 1.0] (Friday, 2 May)
• ISSUE-306 (Fractional time expressions in N.2 media timeBase): Appendix N.2 omits fractional time expressions [TTML 1.0] (Friday, 2 May)
• ISSUE-305 (Profile short names): Register of TTML profiles and short names (Thursday, 1 May)

Last message date: Friday, 30 May 2014 04:00:16 UTC